Porter v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Porter v. State

356 S.W.3d 878, 2012 WL 123053, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 51

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 17, 2012

DocketED 96080

StatusPublished

This text of 356 S.W.3d 878 (Porter v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Porter v. State, 356 S.W.3d 878, 2012 WL 123053, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 51 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Porter (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because there was not a sufficient factual basis established at the plea hearing to support his plea of guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Porter (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because there was not a sufficient factual basis established at the plea hearing to support his plea of guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 S.W.3d 878, 2012 WL 123053, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack